FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, six amicus briefs were filed in a veterans case in support of the petitioner. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case concerning alleged fraud on the court and a pro se veteran’s case; a waiver of a right to respond was filed in the patent case; another waiver of a right to respond was filed in a veterans case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case concerning eligibility; and a petitioner filed a reply in support of a petition in another patent case raising questions about eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the petitioner filed his opening merits brief in Arellano v. McDonough, a case that raises questions regarding equitable tolling and retroactive disability benefits. As for cases with pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a veterans case; following a Supreme Court request in January, the government submitted the view of the United States in a patent case that raises a question related to the intersection of the Seventh Amendment and claim construction on appeal; and a brief in opposition was filed in an employment case concerning differential pay for federal employees serving on active duty. Finally, the Court denied petitions in three patent cases.

As we reported last week, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Arellano v. McDonough, which raises questions about equitable tolling with regard to retroactive disability benefits for veterans. This is the second veterans case during the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term in which the Court has granted review. This case arises from a decision that left the Federal Circuit evenly split on the reasons for its decision “that equitable tolling is not available to afford Mr. Arellano an effective date earlier than the date his application for benefits was received.” Here are more details about the case.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. This week the Court granted certiorari in a veterans case that raises questions regarding equitable tolling and retroactive disability benefits. The Court also requested the Solicitor General file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a patent case raising a question regarding standing to challenge the validity of patents. Additionally, three new petitions were filed with the Court: two in cases appealing decisions from the Merit Systems Protection Board and one in a patent case. Moreover, one amicus brief was submitted in a patent case; three briefs in opposition were filed in trade, employment, and veterans cases; one waiver of right to respond was filed in a patent case; three petitions were denied; and one petition was dismissed. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions to hear any case decided by the Federal Circuit. As for still-pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a veterans case challenging the Federal Circuit’s alleged failure to apply the pro-veteran canon of statutory interpretation. Additionally, a petitioner filed a reply in support of its petition, which raised questions relating to the application of equitable tolling for recovering retroactive disability benefits. Moreover, since our last update, one waiver of right to respond was filed in a patent case. Lastly, the Supreme Court denied four petitions: two in patent cases, one in a veterans case, and one filed by a pro se petitioner. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, since our last update the Court has not granted certiorari in any cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Three new petitions, however, have been filed with the Supreme Court: two in patent cases and one in a pro se case. Moreover, nine amicus briefs across three cases have been filed. Additionally, four waivers of right to respond, two briefs in opposition, and three replies have been filed. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, however, a pro se party filed one new petition with the Court in a patent case. As for previously filed petitions, one amicus brief in a veterans case and one waiver of right to respond in a pro se case were filed. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, however, five new petitions have been filed with the Court: one in a veterans case, three in patent cases, and one filed by a pro se petitioner. As for previously filed petitions, one supplemental brief and two waivers of right to respond were filed. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The en banc court issued a long-awaited opinion last week in a veterans case addressing the applicability of equitable tolling to a particular statutory provision. The court received a response to a petition in a patent case, which raised a question related to competitor standing. Finally, the court denied rehearing in a case raising questions related to patent law’s enablement requirement. Here are the details.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit decided Arellano v. McDonough, a case we have been following since the court scheduled an en banc hearing. Split on reasoning but united in outcome, the court issued a short, unanimous, per curiam opinion affirming the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In addition to the per curiam opinion, however, the court issued two concurrences, each representing the opposing views of six judges. Here is our summary of the court’s opinions.